This case is destined for laughing. Defendant unlawfully entered the U.S. in 2016 and convicted of unlawful entry.  He had previously been ordered removed in 2008 based on  a prior conviction of domestic battery in an in absentia proceeding. Defendant was again removed in 2011 in an expedited proceeding. According to the 9th Circuit panel these proceedings were unlawful because defendant  was not informed of the right to appeal and the right to challenge previous

In addition to the Supreme Court decision in Sexton v. Beaudreaux the Justices also wrote another opinion criticizing the Ninth Circuit::” Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S.Ct. 830 (2018): “The Ninth Circuit’s interpretations of the provisions, however, are implausible….The Ninth Circuit also all but ignored the statutory text.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly reversed Ninth Circuit  habeas corpus decisions of state criminal cases, Constitutional issues of Fourth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, Eighth Amendment  and a host of other subjects. One other category of non criminal cases is immigration. The volume and public interest are limited in judicial immigration rulings despite widespread national interest in immigration. For these reasons we cannot report all Ninth Circuit decisions. But to illustrate Supreme Court rulings we print those cases. Sexton v. Beaudreaux, 2018 WL 3148261 applies. The Ninth

---

Although we have discontinued immigration cases of the 9th Circuit because of volume, a review will confirm the usual bias of the liberal court.   A few samples will illustrate this statement. In Kerry v. Din, 135 S.Ct. 2128 (2015) Justice Scalia discusses Constitutional law and the case of an Afghan woman citizen living in the United States seeking a passport for her husband, a former Taliban active. According to her, she is entitled to live with him

The Ninth Circuit, having concluded the year 2017 with its usual record of reversals in the Supreme Court, opened the new year with an incomprehensible decision in Poyson v. Ryan, 2018 WL 395 713 (9th Cir. ). In a case of brutal, vicious, and heinous murder, an Arizona state court jury in 2012 voted a guilty verdict and death penalty of defendant Poyson. The defendant appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court whose judges affirmed the conviction and sentence.

After the state supreme court denied a

The district court in McNight had issued qualified immunity to the officers in an excessive force case and was reversed by the Ninth Circuit.The Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari, vacated the decision of the Ninth Circuit, and remanded for “further consideration in light of White v. Pauly, 137 S.Ct. 548 (2017).”  In White, the case recommended, the Justices criticized other excessive force reversals by appellate courts on grounds of high generalization of qualified immunity. In McNight the Ninth Circuit has not issued

The Ninth Circuit consists of a variety of judges, the majority of whom are classified as “liberals.” The meaning of the word varies contingent on the subject matter, and in reading enough of their decisions you will note the high degree of reversals of state court cases in federal habeas decisions. In most cases the conviction penalty is murder. In one case a judge dissents and explains that the failure of the death penalty is

The U.S.Supreme Court has repeatedly criticized the Ninth Circuit for its habeas corpus decisions reviewing state court convictions. Recently the Justices told the Ninth Circuit not to assume your duty is correction of legal mistakes. Your test is to determine whether a breakdown has occurred in the state court justice system. The Ninth Circuit simply ignores this instruction, recites the facts and calls the case reviewed as a breakdown. In Rodriguez, the Ninth Circuit decision

In 1996 Congress enacted the AntiTerror and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) to reduce the impact of a U.S. Supreme Court decision adding federal habeas corpus in the U.S. Constitution to jurisdiction in state courts. Federal courts began to review state court criminal cases in habeas corpus petitions to reverse judgments already decided. The imposition exceeded its expectation as federal courts rendered decisions far exceeding legislative intentions. In time, the language of the Act came very close to almost ending federal

Another murder case resolved by the Ninth Circuit whose judges regularly reverse murder cases and death penalties although the jury in Godoy v. Spearman voted only second degree murder. The California Court of Appeal had affirmed the conviction, the California Supreme Court denied review, and the district court denied a habeas corpus petition filed by the defendant. The Ninth Circuit heard the appeal from the district court  and in a split vote reheard the case again on federal habeas corpus and reversed. The Ninth

In a split 9th Circuit court vote the majority Constitutionalizes a courtroom practice defined as “shackling” prisoners, and destined to affect all state and federal trial courts. The dissent is a written masterpiece rejecting the majority court decision of four men convicted several years ago. The court is ruling on: the absence of a “Case or Controversy” mandated by the Constitution; violation without precedent of the Fifth Amendment Clause; a series of adjectives describing the impaired dignity of everyone shackled; ignoring a presumption of innocence until a

Another death penalty case reversed by the same judge who reverses other capital cases (including this one earlier ), never upholding the verdict regardless of the vicious and brutal murder the jury voted correctly. In this case, scouring the record of a defendant who filed three state habeas corpus cases rejected by state courts; a previous federal habeas corpus case reversed by the 9th Circuit; the instant case reversed by the 9th Circuit. To begin, the

Another U.S. Supreme Court reversal of the Ninth Circuit by the Justices who specifically identify the mistake of that Circuit in understanding the Fourth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit had invented the “provocation rule” in criminal cases holding officers liable for conduct in violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition of unreasonable searches and searches.  In most cases the prohibition suppresses any evidence seized in violation. Federal law has a civil component in Section 42.1983 allowing civil suit for Fourth Amendment violation although the Section does

Not a death penalty case, just life imprisonment without parole for first degree murder. The California Court of Appeals upheld the conviction and sentence; the California Supreme Court denied review; state courts denied habeas corpus.  Now to the federal courts who issued and reviewed endless rulings on habeas corpus and a jury instruction until the district court granted the petition on procedural grounds.  The State of California appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and two of the three judge panel affirmed.

Another state court death penalty case reversed by a Ninth Circuit panel accompanied by a strong dissenting opinion. After the jury voted the death penalty the trial judge reviewed the defendant’s record, including mitigating evidence, and confirmed the verdict. On direct appeal the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and sentence.. 1486

Were it not for the U.S. Supreme Court prior reversal of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in this case, and reversals of an untold number of other cases, the Nasby case might make sense. Nasby was convicted of murder in 1999 and is still in court filing papers. The result of the decision in this case will require more filings. Convicted in a Nevada trial court, Nasby’s direct appeal in the Nevada Supreme Court was denied.

The 9th Circuit wrote one of its worst opinions in beginning the year 2017 that collected seven dissents.  In a state court murder case the jury convicted all three defendants but subsequent evidence established the jury convicted the wrong killer but sentenced death against all three. Evidence was overwhelming. The California Supreme Court affirmed the verdict although acknowledging the error.  The evidence established that the one defendant was nevertheless guilty, even though, not the actual killer, under a conspiracy theory or of aiding and abetting.

The state court of appeal held that the trial court judge correctly ruled by excusing a single juror who explicitly said he would not follow the law.  A perfectly correct decision but not in the 9th Circuit who reversed the state court on habeas corpus.  Naturally, the Supreme Court reversed the 9th Circuit for not following Supreme Court precedent and ignoring AEDPA. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the 9th Circuit (again) who upheld the California court this time. Yet even

Once again the 9th Circuit ignores the IJ and BIA and concludes the evidence does not support an order of removal.The panel orders the case reheard for an alien who has been in this country for eight years litigating his removal after not complying with the entrance act for asylum. The dissent writes about safety in this country and alien’s non compliance with the law. Why does the 9th Circuit want these people in this country?

Crittenden was convicted of murder in 1995, and the case affirmed on mandatory appeal to the California Supreme Court. The 9th Circuit on habeas corpus appeal wrote rehearings and remanding to the District Court. Finally in 2011 the district court made another decision on remand.The case has been sitting in the 9th Circuit for another five years. Finally, in 2015 the 9th Circuit concluded the prosecutor had violated Batson. In 2016 what are the chances of retrying a murderer? The ground for appeal by the defendant: the